The Inspired Solo, Disbarred.

For those new around here, or new to the wonderful world of lawyers selling their marketing skills on the internet, I'm what's known as a bully, asshole, dinosaur, buzz kill, cog in the wheel of attempts to peddle garbage, guy who exposes the sewer that is the world of lawyer marketing on the internet.

In order for any of this to make sense, some history is important.

When I first started talking with people on twitter, one night I received what is called a "direct message." That's a private message between two people. The message asked if I knew the person I was publicly talking with was disbarred? Disbarred? No, of course not. In fact, the person's bio said that he left the practice of law because he was so interested in teaching lawyers how to blog. Why would anyone blatantly lie about why they left the practice - why not just say "I no longer practice?"

After reading the disbarment order, I wondered why any lawyer would hire someone with this background to teach them how to do anything practice-related.. 

So I wrote about it. 

Yeah, I know, defamation. I get threatened weekly, always by people that have never read the law of defamation. You have to have two things, a reputation, and damages. Usually both are a problem for these folks. Oh, and I what I say has to be false as well, that's always the problem for them. They don't like the truth, but it is, the truth.

It was then I realized that lawyers don't ask questions to anyone that claims to be able to make them money. Apparently, no one knew about this, or those who knew weren't willing to say anything. He was on his way to being a faculty member of Solo Practice University and then apparently the CEO who like Taylor Swift said she never ever ever ever knew about it, got the news....and well, that was that.

I confirmed this with a lawyer-marketer I know. Lawyers don't ask the hard questions like "why don't you practice anymore?" Or: "How many clients have you brought in to your law practice with social media?"

And then I found more of them - people who were a little free with their bios. Some I found, others found me through other lawyers passing it along - too afraid to mention it themselves. Some reaction was fascinating - lawyers telling me they didn't need me to write about the scum of the profession as they needed no protection. You know, like the protection lawyers don't need from Nigerian e-mail scams? (most victims are lawyers.)

Once I found a lawyer still trolling for business on the internet, even though she was facing charges of mortgage fraud (to which she pled guilty) and was disbarred. When I asked her why she was doing that she asked me if I would leave my partner hanging if that happened to me? You know, her law partner needed to make some money (and why did I have to ruin everything?) She now calls herself a "real estate law...rockstar," and uses only a part of her name, as the complete name brings up things that maybe her new friends in her new world don't know.

The internet is omnipresent, but a great place to hide.

Well when that issue came up of the lawyer facing mortgage fraud charges, The Inspired Solo chimed in, Sheryl Sisk Schelin. Her blog is gone now, as is her law license. 

We'll get back to that in a minute - the law license part.

Sheryl called me a bully. I of course had never heard of her, so I did a quick Google search and discovered her law license was suspended in what's called an "interim suspension." The order says it's for failure to complete CLE requirements.

Sheryl said she had a health issue. Maybe that's why she didn't complete her CLE.

But then Sheryl was disbarred.

Matter I

Respondent was retained by ten clients to file bankruptcy actions on their behalf.  Respondent accepted payments from the clients, including, in many cases, court filing fees, in excess of $15,000, but failed to perform any meaningful work on the cases or to diligently represent the clients and pursue their actions.  Indeed, respondent never actually filed a bankruptcy action on behalf of any of the clients.  Respondent failed to respond to telephone calls and emails from clients and failed to keep them reasonably informed of the status of their cases.  Respondent also failed to refund to the clients that portion of the fees and costs that was not yet earned or incurred because respondent had converted the funds for her personal use.  Finally, respondent failed to return the clients' documents and other materials in their files.

Matter II

A client endorsed and returned to respondent a settlement check in the amount of $2,000.  Respondent cashed the check but failed to disburse any proceeds to the client.  Respondent also failed to communicate with the client about the status of the settlement proceeds or about the client's pending case.

Matter III

On July 10, 2008, respondent was retained to represent a client in a civil action.  Respondent agreed to represent the client on a contingency basis in addition to a $1,000 fee.  The client also paid respondent $350 for filing fees.  Respondent failed to keep the client informed regarding the status of her case and failed to respond to the client's emails, faxes, text messages or telephone calls.  Respondent informed the client that an additional $1,200 to $1,500 may be required for personal service.  The client requested a written explanation of the additional fees.  However, respondent failed to send the client a letter of explanation regarding the additional fees.  Respondent failed to refund the client that portion of her fees and costs that was not yet earned or incurred because respondent had converted the funds for her personal use.  Respondent failed to diligently represent the client in the civil action.

Matter IV

Respondent was paid $500 by a client to represent the client in a wrongful termination action.  Thereafter, respondent informed the client that due to the loss of respondent's electronically-stored information, respondent may have miscalculated the filing date for one of the client's statutory claims.  Respondent also informed the client that due to the miscalculation error, respondent would represent the client free of charge and pay all costs of litigation.  However, respondent failed to file any actions on respondent's behalf regarding the wrongful termination claim.  She also failed to refund the $500 retainer fee, as she had agreed to do.  Respondent failed to diligently represent the client in the action and failed to perform any meaningful work on the case.  Respondent also failed to timely respond to the client's telephone calls and faxes and failed to keep the client reasonably informed of the status of the case.

Failure to Respond

Respondent was served with notices of full investigation in each of these matters, but failed to respond or otherwise communicate with ODC in response to the notices.

Did you buy her "Twitter for Lawyers" book? Did you buy her advice, her consulting services? Did you want to be an "Inspired Solo?" Did you look all wide-eyed like you do when you watch those people on infomercials sitting on beaches in exotic places with the waves crashing behind them?

Have you ever asked that former lawyer turned social media marketing expert about their law practice - about their former law practice? Is the prospect of money that enticing that you just don't want to know the truth about what's behind the great and powerful Oz?

I do hope that Sheryl's health issues are resolved, although it doesn't appear the South Carolina Bar disbarred her for that reason.

I know this because I spent 5 seconds typing in to a keyboard.

And now you know.

Do you care?

Will it affect the way you approach these former lawyers turned "I can make you money" marketers?"

Eh.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

What A Marketer Hears When They Get Me On The Phone

I don't know how Scott from Yodle got my cell phone number. I really don't care either. I have a cell phone, it has a number, and that number has been provided to a lot of people. Spending time on worrying about how he got it is for those same people whose heads explode whenever they get an unsolicited email.

So I was driving home yesterday from a meeting in Orlando and a Miami phone number popped up. I answer these unknown calls about 50% of the time, and I figured, why not.

Unfortunately, my answers didn't fit Scott's script:

"Hi is this Brian?

"Yes."

This is Scott from Yodlelaw."

(Smirk, and then...)

Silence

"So Brian, have you heard of us?"

"Yes."

"Well then you know we work with lawyers, including criminal defense lawyers.

"Yes."

"I'd like to know whether you are taking on any new clients?"

"No."

"No? Well, is that because you're filled up and can't take on anymore?"

"Yes."

"So you're not interested in more business right now?"

"No."

"Well, that's great, sounds like you're doing very well. Let me ask you so if someone called you for a DUI case you wouldn't take it right now, you'd refer it to another lawyer?"

"Yes."

"Wow, sounds like you are very successful, is there another practice area you're looking to build where you would be interested in more clients?"

"No."

"So the lawyers you refer cases to, can you give me the name of one of those lawyers?"

"No."

"Brian, it sounds like you're on the road, is there a better time to reach you?"

"No."

"Um, OK, well...thank you for your time."

"OK."

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Finally, A Marketing Company You Should Hire

One of the things I hear from fellow lawyers all the time is that I don't need to write about the people that have no business selling advice to lawyers, because according to them, no one is stupid enough to hire them, except all the firms that do.

Well now here comes a company that is everything lawyers should look for in a marketing company.

I give you... huhcorp.com

Their motto, sorry, tagline: "We do stuff."

Welcome to the world's most dynamic eBusiness marketing, design and consulting agency. We provide distinct clients with groundbreaking business strategies and cutting-edge designs to aggressively and creatively compete in a changing economy.

Our consulting ideas will entice and excite you. Our professional design solutions will give you the confidence to succeed. And our web site will make you think we know what we're doing.

And they have a strategy for those desperate lawyers thinking that there were only a couple of lying pieces of shit out there selling you on the dream:

Our main consulting strategy is to convince clients that we do stuff they can't do themselves, and that we deserve lots of money for it. The best way to do this is to always look good, and always sound like we know something you don't. Because we do.

Are you confused yet? Of course you are. And that's just how we like it. Our marketing professionals are constantly coming up with new ways to make you feel inferior and stupid. Because you are. And we're not. We're new-age, eMoving, marketing consultants.

And while I'm always wondering why my lawyer guru friends don't happen to talk about their vast list of imaginary clients, huhcorp entices you:

Our marketing and consultant clients are numerous and prestigious. Far too numerous and prestigious to name, in fact. You'll just have to take our word on this. There are a lot of them. And they're all really big, successful companies. All of our clients are very powerful and have lots and lots of money. That's why we charge so much for our design and marketing services. Because we can.

Our clients are always satisfied with our service. If you knew who any of them were, you could confirm this for yourself, but, since you don't, you'll just have to take our word on this one too.

This is the real deal people. But don't trust me, call for yourself.

As my critics out there say - I don't need to tell you.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Turkewitz & The Southern Belle: Listen Up Young Lawyers

One thing about lawyers, is that they have found a way to use the internet, to use everything about the internet, to try and make money. There is no shortage of "how to make money" articles regarding every single new website and social media platform out there. Former 8 month practitioners are ready to sell you the secrets of social media and formerly practicing lawyers are making sure you know everything the iPhone and iPad cam do for you, as a lawyer of course.

Every so often, real lawyers looking to build or improve their real practices, can find real advice to use in representing real clients.

Like the two I found today, for example:

Eric Turkewitz, of "outsource your marketing, outsource your ethics" fame, writes some advice for new lawyers. Be forewarned, there is no advice regarding your internet presence, your use of a shiny electronic advice, or musings on the future of law that have no basis in fact.

While Eric has some misguided notion about proper footware, he provides the following sage advice:

Find a good mentor.

Let me elaborate.

Find someone who has been practicing law for a while. A mentor is not someone you buy, not someone who designs websites or sells you advice regarding SEO or "keywords." A mentor is someone you call, have a meal with, and generally ask advice of because you want to be better at lawyering, or you don't want to make things worse.

Eric adds something you'll not see from most of those "former lawyers" selling practice-by-point-and-click:

I write from experience.

Did you hear that? He writes from experience. Now go ask your social media guru or iPad licker whether they "write from experience." Don't hit yourself too hard when you get something that sounds like someone wants to avoid the question.

Eric is a good read, a good guy, but unfortunately for the kids, doesn't play well with the cheesy marketers out there. If you want to be a good lawyer with a respectable practice, Eric is a good guy to follow. If you're looking to pretend you're a good lawyer, go elsewhere.

And let me welcome the Southern Belle to the blawgosphere.

I hope this blog will accurately (and entertainingly) chronicle my forthcoming adventures in indigent defense. I’ve wanted to be a public defender for a long time. I actually went to law school for that express purpose. So, as you can imagine, I’m beyond excited to begin this journey.

Notice anything? No mention of the internet, or a shiny toy? Some more bad news for you hucksters out there - appears Ms. Belle isn't following a single one of you on twitter. Her only interest seems to be real lawyers with real practices. Sorry. Those of you selling the dream of "success by Google and things with power switches" will have to find some other sucker to which to peddle your wears.

While I don't agree Ms. Belle has to be anonymous for "ethical" reasons, I look forward to reading about her experiences as a newly minted public defender.

So take a gander, read these posts. Be happy there's still a few real lawyers looking to talk about the real meaning of being a lawyer.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Richard P. Console Would Like To Post An Article On Your Blog

For bloggers, this scenario is a big "yawn."

Email comes in from someone who appears to be perky young female all all smitten about your blog. Sweetie hasn't really read it, but will claim to have done so. What sweetie knows is that other people read it and she is pimping for a lawyer that wants to be read. That the topic of your blog has nothing to do with what her client wants attention for is of no matter.

And so yesterday, for the 58904th time, the email came, although this one was a bit different:

-------- Original message --------
Subject: Good Afternoon
From: Emily Kreifels
To: Brian Tannebaum

Good Afternoon

Thank you so much for taking the time to read my email. I am writing to you on behalf of Console & Hollawell PC, we are an personal injury firm from Southern New Jersey.

Your blog, http://mylawlicense.blogspot.com/, was recently recommended to me and since then, I have enjoyed reading the articles that you have published, they are entertaining and have become one of my favorite parts of the day.

With that being said, I was wondering if you might be interested in discussing a guest blog post from my law firm to your site. Our attorney, Mr. Richard P. Console Jr, would really love to put something together for your readers about medical malpractice.

Please let me know what you think of this idea, I’d love to discuss it in more detail with you.

EMILY KREIFELS / Internet Marketing Specialist / Console | Hollawell P.C.

e: ekreifels@consoleandhollawell.com t: 866.778.5500 f: 856.778.1918

525 Route 73 North, Suite 117. Marlton, NJ, 08053

Very nice, sweet stuff. Richard P. Console would love to put something together for my blog? Really? Richard P. Console has never heard of me, or my blog. Richard would love for you to continue trying to get him internet attention, and do that however you do that.

I was going to ask her to name the last 5 posts she read here, or how her clients feel about her opinion that my anti-cheesy marketing posts are her "favorite part of the day," but I didn't want to be mean in my response:

On Jul 30, 2012, at 10:39 PM, "Brian Tannebaum" wrote:

So this is your job? Sending emails to lawyer bloggers trying to get guest posts for your client? Does he have his own blog? What's the address? Why would I want an article on medical malpractice on a legal ethics blog, other than that your client wants a place to pimp his practice?

Pretty pathetic.

Brian Tannebaum

And as internet marketers love to engage in discussions when they sense criticism, she responded:

I'm sorry if I upset you.

I won't contact you again.

I asked:

Why don't you not contact any lawyers again? Why don't you tell your client to write his own blog instead of trying to glom off of other bloggers? Tell him its a dumb idea.

Brian Tannebaum

No response. Emily wont. It's her job. Richard P. Console wants attention on the internet and if people aren't going to read his stories of death and accidents on his blog and hire him, then the next best thing is to find other lawyer's blogs and invite himself to the party through Emily.

I'm not a big "invite yourself to the party" guy. I like to be invited. I often turn down the invitation, as I don't even have time to blog here as much as I'd like. But when lawyers want and need attention, they just ask for it, or have others ask for them. Attention isn't something that people pay on their own anymore through good work and referrals, it's something we lawyers for which we lawyers prostitute ourselves, apparently.

The internet is a wonderful and horrible place. Lawyers have turned it in to a sewer. Lawyers have shown themselves to always be the first to discuss how something new on the internet can help them "make money as a lawyer." We are in everyone's face on the internet, discussing how every new website can help us get clients. We embarrass ourselves. Whole perceived careers have been faked by people claiming they can help lawyers make money on the internet by typing and posting.

Richard P. Console has an internet marketer inviting him to other people's blogs. Why does he want to write for your blog? Why does he want to write for your blog that has nothing to do with his practice? Why does he blog?

Because I am a nice guy, I will help Richard P. Console.

Richard P. Console would like to write for your blog so that he can get more attention on the internet. He wants other bloggers to give him attention so that he can get clients. As a friendly, giving type, I want to help Richard P. Console get clients, and I hope his presence on my blog helps.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Selling Solo Practice

Solo Practice "University" (SPU) queen Susan Cartier Liebel is "grumpy" that a law firm is offering $10,000 as a salary for a lawyer.


Susan asks:

Has the legal market become so bad that lawyers are actually considering taking a 'full-time associates' position which pays $192.30 a week….before taxes?

Um, Susan, I assume since you sell the dream of solo practice to young desperate lawyers you are aware that many of them can't get a job, anywhere, for any amount of money.

And here comes the sales pitch commentary on the low-paying job:

I once heard someone say that most people are not afraid of failure so much as they are afraid of success. At first blush I'm sure many of you are shaking your head and saying, 'hell no. I want to be successful. No doubt in mind. I just need the opportunity and I'm there.'

Success, opportunity, oh dear, wherever can I find this success and opportunity?

That's really what we do think. We want to be successful. We also fantasize about everything we will do with that success (which usually means having a certain amount of money to buy those things symbolizing our success – whatever that is. Maybe food?)

Success, fantasize, money, tell me more.....help me....

But most people are not trained on how to achieve success. We are trained to want and we are trained to be employees and travel a well-worn path to get 'somewhere' known and seemingly safe. And for some this is exactly what is wanted, to follow a well-worn path with guideposts and guaranteed results. It's also why in practically every industry and profession people are panicked because the well-worn paths are no longer leading to success but to no place even resembling the mythical land of promised success.

Training...wanting.....panicked....mythical land of promised success.... I can't take it anymore...tell me how to make money, to be successful, to have........

That is why I had to comment on the latest buzz which is about a legal job posting on Boston College of Law's job site for full-time law associates paying $10,000 per year.

That is why? What is why? Oh, here it is....drumroll......

We are so ingrained to believe employment by another is the answer that we don't realize (nor are we told) there are other ways!

Yes! There are other ways! Is it...is it going solo? Can you help me Susan?

Now Susan wants "to be fair" about this $10,000 job, so here's the whole story:

In addition to $10K per year, the Gilbert & O’Bryan job posting also notes: 'This is an excellent position for a new lawyer or someone returning to a legal career, and a good place to learn how to practice law with real clients. … Benefits include malpractice insurance, health insurance, employer paid clothing allowance and an MBTA pass. Former employees have gone on to prominence in other firms, government and private practice.'”

Learn how to practice law with real clients? Health insurance? Clothes? Transportation? Don't you get that all when you sign up for SPU?

Susan still doesn't like it: "I'm deeply offended by the law firm who doesn't respect fellow lawyers enough to offer a living wage."


You see, the less firms out there offering jobs, offering anything, the more desperate young lawyers become, and the more desperate they become, the more willing they are to jump on the internet and pay for advice.

SPU is a website that sells courses to lawyers that want to go out on their own. They've had "professors" teaching things like blogging for profit (Former Professor Grant Griffiths who was disbarred for taking money from a trust set up for children prior to taking his new gig at SPU), and adoption (taught by a lawyer later arrested in a baby selling scam)

Susan's also been generous enough to give a forum to a young lawyer whose ethics were under the microscope for silly things like not having an office where she practices.

Jobs at law firms are bad things to SPU, as they cause lawyers to decide between buying advice on the internet, or learning to practice with real lawyers.

Susan has good news though about going out on your own, and I'm sure she'll put this in writing for you when you sign up for SPU:

"I'll wager you'll earn more than $192.30 per week before taxes. And you'll certainly get a lot more 'experience' putting your degree to use on your terms without losing your dignity."

Yeah, I wonder how? maybe by...charging less than other lawyers? That's OK, right? It's just not OK for a law firm do to the same thing when offering a job.

"On your terms," isn't that what all young lawyers yearn for - doing what they want, how they want. Of course there's no examples anywhere on how that could be a collosal mistake, or at least when we're selling advice on the web we quietly avoid mentioning it.

Gotta protect your business.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.


Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Blogging The Florida Board Of Bar Examiners Hearings: Now I'm Confused

Like any lawyer after a long period of time practicing in front of the same court or board, I left this weekend's hearings with a sense of confusion. I thought I understood this process. Maybe I do, but I'm not sure.

The purpose, in my opinion, of bar admission hearings are two fold: One is to ask questions relating to issues of character and fitness, the other is what I call "legalized hazing."

When someone is appointed to the Board of Bar Examiners, they go through some training. Some Board members stick to the script, while others just want to get to the point and determine whether the applicant should be admitted. I don't know what that training entails, but if I had to guess, I would guess the following is taught (it isn't, but it just looks this way from the other side of the table):

1. Make the applicant uncomfortable.

Regardless of their answer to a question, respond with "I'm confused," or "I thought you said before, that...." This is interrogation 101. Make the person being questioned second guess what they just said, even if you know they are telling the truth.

2. Even if you, as a lawyer on the Board, understand how something happened, (because you've been in that situation), pretend you don't.


This always entrigues me, this "I don't understand," when every lawyer who has practiced law for 5 minutes has had the same situation. I sit there and look around thinking "you know what happened here, it happens all the time." Some Board members do the "spoon feeding" thing and say "so what happened was....," while others continue with open ended questions appearing to have no idea what caused the situation to occur.

3. In an "us" vs. "them" mentality - ignore the lawyers who represent applicants.

I've been told this is not true, that members of the Board haven't been told "not" to talk to lawyers that appear before the Board, but "I'm confused" when the more senior members of the Board chat it up with us in the hallways and otherwise outside the hearing setting while the new members make it clear that saying "hello" or even making eye contact is a real problem. By the way, the applicants notice this, and it doesn't say much for the profession. What's funny is that when I'm in court and I see a judge off the bench, I usually say hello instead of turning my head.

4. Assume misinterpretations of questions are lies, lies, lies.

When an applicant says they answered a question because they thought the question said "this" instead of what the Bar Examiner "knows" to be the correct interpretation, what we have here is a difference of interpretations. Sure, some applicants are full of it and were just trying to pass one over on the Board, but let's assume that maybe there's a few that are just not as smart as the Bar Examiners and were just wrong. It is entirely possible that the applicant is not as smart in the nuances of the Bar application as the Board Member.

5. In another attempt to make the applicant uncomfortable, make faces that indicate you are just shocked, shocked, shocked at the answer you are hearing while becoming more aggressive in your questioning.


I was always told that in court, it's inappropriate to make faces. What are we teaching young lawyers?

For that matter, as another Bar Defense Lawyer said to me this weekend "these applicants go to hearings and think that this is the way lawyers behave."

That comment hit me. While the Board is not group of similarly minded, or similarly behaved people, when an applicant pays a fee, plus hires a lawyer, puts on a suit, travels to another city, and sits in a room with those that are judging whether they should be a lawyer - shouldn't they demonstrate lawyers at their best?

Listen, there's nothing wrong with a little in-your-face-talking-to at these hearings. Nothing wrong with scaring the crap out of a potential lawyer in an effort to let them know that this is a rough and tumble profession and certain behavior is not tolerated. But shouldn't there be a demonstration of the behavior that is expected from lawyers?

An applicant's lack of understanding of the question, or the issue that is trying to be created, doesn't always equate to a lie, and many Board members understand this. The purpose of these hearings should, should be to gather information and determine whether the applicant is being candid and whether both those issues establish a person with the character and fitness to be an attorney at law. There's an applicant blatently lying? Slam him. But some of them are being honest, I promise you that.

Which brings me to another issue of confusion: financial responsibility.

I always advise applicants that putting their financial house in order is essential to being admitted in Florida. This means either all debts are paid, there has been efforts to pay, or there is a payment plan. I have declined to represent applicants that have financial issues and have made no effort to resolve them. I know the Board will defer their admission until efforts are made to pay debt. The old "let me in to the Bar so I can make money and then I'll try to pay my debt" doesn't work.

The reasons for the financial issues are still fair game for the Board, as they need to know whether the applicant is responsible when it comes to their own, and more importantly, client funds.

But when there is a large debt, fully paid, and the Board eats the guy alive, casting irrelevance on the payment of the debt, it's more confusion for me. I saw this recently. This was the guy. In the sea of law students with crushing debt, unpaid taxes, maybe mortgage foreclosures, he was the one that paid off a large debt. Man was I excited. What an example.

But that he paid the debt was not even relevant, it seemed. They did all the things I've described above, and made it clear that they were just not believing anything he said about anything.

But the guy had a large debt, and he paid it, every penny.

So what do I tell my clients?

Of course I know what I will tell them in addition to everything else I tell them:

"Ignore the dirty looks and 'shocked' looks on their faces, don't be 'confused' by the 'I'm confused' method of responding to your answers, if you're lying, don't, but if you're not, don't let 'I thought you said' put you off-guard.

And, if you ever get the chance to apply for the Board of Bar Examiners, remember everything that happened when you were there."

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.